Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:00]
A
I don't think people look at the gerontocracy in the Senate right now and say, okay, they're going to figure out AI.
- [00:10]
B
Welcome to how to Fix It. I'm John Avlon. And of course the purpose of this podcast is to focus on finding solutions to the problems we face, not just endlessly fixating on the problems themselves. Joining this this week is Massachusetts Congressman Seth molton, representing Massachusetts 6th District District around Salem, Mass. He is currently running for U.S. senate against Democratic incumbent Ed Markey with a big primary coming up. Seth, it's always good to see you.
- [00:39]
A
It's great to see you too, John. And I got to tell you, you know, one of the first pieces of political advice I've gotten that I've always remembered is from someone who worked for me very early on. And he said, you know, it's not enough just to get on TV and complain. You got to give people a vision of the future. And I think that's something that Democrats especially need to do right now. But I love that that's kind of the theme of your podcast.
- [01:04]
B
Thanks, man. Well, look, you know, we started this when I was running for Congress and I talked to you about about that decision, but it seems to me that's the conversation we need to be having in politics and in journalism. And a lot of journalists are frankly scared, I think, of talking about policy because it might look like they're advocating. But at the end of the idea, if we don't have an engaged citizenry that feels that we can actually deal with our problems and get excited by those rather than feeling overwhelmed by the scale of the difficulty, then folks just kind of curl up and that's the opposite of what we need to be as citizens. So I appreciate that. All right, so let's dig into your policies. In the context of this primary, you put forward sort of a new vision for the Democratic Party, not surprisingly. First top two items are age limits and term limits. Explain.
- [01:53]
A
Look, I think it's just a reality right now that people are saying there are a lot of people in the Democratic Party that are really old. And then look at our president. I mean, he's going senile before our eyes. And so maybe the founding Fathers would have put upper age limits just like they put lower age limits. If people had lived this long back in the day, I mean, I served in the Marines with some of the most extraordinary Americans, some of the most amazing leaders I have ever met in my Life. There were 22 year olds, there were some 20 year olds taking on responsibilities with far greater skill and principle, morality and everything else than many of my colleagues in Congress. And yet we've kind of come to this consensus that it's okay to have 26 be the age limit where you just can't run for Congress if you're not 26. I think it's reasonable to talk about an upper age limit as well.
- [02:50]
B
And what do you think that is in practice? I mean, you know, you support term limits as well. And to me it's like, you know, if you've been 18 years in the Senate and you know, I don't know, maybe you're going to get a lot more done in your 24th year. But what's the age limit you think needs to be placed? 80.
- [03:08]
A
I don't really know. I mean there's a lot of people who say 80. There's some states that are floating 80. The limit for judges in Massachusetts is 70. So somewhere in there. And the point is that just like there are Some extraordinarily talented 24 year old leaders who can't run for Congress, there are going to be some extraordinarily talented 78, 80, maybe even 82 year old people who just get timed out. But that's okay. That's okay. That's a reasonable compromise to make to ensure that we don't have another Biden Feinstein or Ruth Bader Ginsburg situation.
- [03:45]
B
So those are all really specific elements. And then there was, you know, Ted Kennedy when he was ill and the implications that had for Obama and majority proof of the Senate. It does seem that there's a holding on for reasons that might reflect that person's own sense of purpose rather than the good of the Republic. And I think that's where, like we forget this is not supposed to be a lifetime appointment. This isn't judges. This is something you're supposed to do for a season of your life to do good service and then go back home, pull a cincinnatus. Why did we get away from that, do you think?
- [04:25]
A
Well, and hopefully encourage and mentor other people to come in with new ideas and different perspectives. I mean, I don't think people look at the gerontocracy in the Senate right now and say, okay, they're going to figure out AI, you know, they're going to make sure that kids like our kids age are going to actually be able to survive and thrive in this new economy that's transforming before our eyes. And the sort of running joke in the Senate is that half the Senate can't even spell AI. That's how little they know about it. And so it is time for a new generation of leadership. But even as one of the youngest members of Congress, when I started, I very early on founded Serve America, an organization to recruit, mentor and support other veterans, national service veterans, so military veterans, but Also City Year AmeriCorps veterans who want to serve the country in Washington with the theory that maybe some people who've had some experience serving the country before will bring that service ethic to Congress. And so I have worked for a while on bringing new people into politics. And Mikey Sherrill, Abigail Spamberger, who won those incredibly important gubernatorial races on the East Coast, Alyssa Slotkin and Andy Kim, who are already in the Senate, Johanna Hayes, Chrissy Houlihan, Jason Crow, great leaders in the House. I mean, these are all people that I helped bring in. And I think that's good, that's good for the institution. I don't think it should be enough just to get yourself reelected.
- [05:56]
B
For sure it's not. That was not the founder's intent. But I think you're zeroing in on something important. It's not only important for the republic, but I think it's particularly important for the Democratic Party, which since Vietnam has been tagged and tarred unfairly with the idea that it is weak on national service. We've got military experience, weak on national security. And in fact, I want to argue this with you right now is that you and I are both members of what are sometimes called the 911 generation. You know, I lived it up close. Many folks served in the wake of that terror attack. And it's interesting to me that for all the politicization of that moment by largely Republicans who were in power, that when you look at the leading members of the 911 generation serving in Congress and governors right now, they seem to be center left. And I want to underline center left. But it's interesting that that, you know, that seems to be where the energy and the collective conscience of the 911 generation went to the center left. Why do you think that is?
- [07:02]
A
Well, look, I think there are a lot of Republicans who were really dishonest about the war. I mean, Bush, remember, was one, of course, who said, oh, we got to go to Iraq for wmd. And sadly, there were a lot of even Democrats who believed those lies. Naively, of course, mostly Republicans, though Republicans were cheerleaders for those wars for a long time. I mean, as a veteran of Iraq, having served four tours there myself, it's not lost on me that I'm running against an 80 year old incumbent who voted for the war, one of the Democrats who said, yeah, hey, let's do it, let's go to Iraq. Had nothing to do with 9, 11, but sure, let's give it a shot. And I think that was a really bad decision. But I think the point is that the Republican Party in general has had to have a reckoning with supporting wars, cheerleading for wars, just because they were started by Republican presidents when they don't always make a lot of sense. And that brings us to today where it's, I mean, it's extraordinary that all these Republicans in Congress, I mean, people who are pretty reasonable behind the scenes, even asking tough questions of the administration behind the scenes, are trying to make this Iran excursion, as the president calls it out to be a good idea. We're losing this war across the board. It's a disaster for us.
- [08:24]
B
Let's dig into that. I mean, with the exception of the Rand Pauls and the Thomas Masseys, who were being demonized for their consistent opposition, the fact that this happened this way, no selling of the war to the American people, apparently kind of an impulsive decision by the president and the Pentagon, where things like the Strait of Hormuz, which were always a factor in strategy discussions, seem to have been discounted. You say we're losing the war. I mean, certainly the leadership of the Islamic Republic has been damaged, degraded or dead. But how did we blunder into this? What? The kind of behind the scenes inquiry that's going on. And are Republicans being honest about it?
- [09:09]
A
No, they're not. They're not being honest at all. Because some of them do actually ask tough questions in classified sessions on the Armed Services Committee, reasonable questions, even backing up some of the questions that Democrats like me ask. And yet then they go out and just vote to continue the war. Then they get on TV and say, oh, it's going great. You know, we had to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Well, guess what? The Islamic Republic has been around for 50 years. They've been working on nuclear stuff for a long time. I'm not, I very much believe that they would like to have a nuclear weapon. Certainly many elements of the regime do. And yet every previous president has managed to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon without starting a war and without inviting them to close the Strait of Hormuz. I mean, so it's a disaster. But it's also worth just going through all the different rationale really quickly for what Trump has said he wanted to do. Right? Because I actually would argue that there has been Regime change. You've replaced an 86 year old in failing health who had a fatwa against ever building a nuclear weapon with a guy in his 50s who, in case he wasn't more hardline, you killed his media, all of his immediate family. And there's a lot of reason to believe that he will just rush to produce a bomb. He's certainly more controlled by the hardline IRGC elements of that regime. Then there was oil. Trump said it was for oil. Well, that's not gone very well. I mean, people are paying over $4.50 at the pump right now. He said it was about ballistic missiles. And sure, we destroyed a bunch of their ballistic missiles, but they'll rebuild them or maybe they'll just buy a bunch of even more sophisticated ballistic missiles than they ever had from China with the $14 billion that Trump gave them by lifting the oil sanctions on Iran in the middle of the war. I mean, just to let that sink in, they kill 14Americans and in response we say, oh no, no worries, why don't you sell your oil now? And they've got so far.
- [11:06]
B
Dig into that for a second. It's completely insane. Not only that, but we also lifted the embargoes on, on Russia.
- [11:14]
A
Oh, that's right. We want to give all our, our national security adversaries and Trump's good buddies friends. I mean, it's actually not surprising at all that he lifted sanctions on Putin. Cuz he's always looking for excuses to do something nice for Putin. Right. He has a 90 minute phone call with Putin and then the next day he pulls 5,000 troops out of Germany, weakening NATO. Right. So that's not a surprise. I just didn't know that Trump was such good friends with the ayatollahs in Iran.
- [11:40]
B
I think what we're seeing is, is that for large elements of the Trump administration, it, it's all about the money. In addition to, you know, for someone who campaigned against foreign wars, I mean, I think this is the ninth country we've attacked. But there's no easy way out of this. To your point, you've had some, some highly televised clashes with Pete Heth, questioning his, you know, honesty and his leadership in this.
- [12:09]
A
Just, you know, what is the state incompetence, John? I think I'm just questioning his basic competence. But yes. Sorry, I don't mean interrupt.
- [12:17]
B
No, no, I mean dig into that for a second because he seems to have, you know, he's just firing, you know, the head of the Navy during the war. Firing head of the army During a war, the army head was someone deeply respected within the military. Who does that during a war? What. What is the game plan? Or is this all just personal petty politics and flexing?
- [12:40]
A
The person who does that during the war is someone who's deeply insecure. And the reason that Hegseth is sticking around is because he has a lot in common with his boss, another deeply insecure man. I think Trump probably likes the fact that Hegseth has a history of being accused of sexual abuse, multiple wives, people who have disliked, distrusted him for a long time, because Trump identifies with all that, because it's the same experience for him. And while Hegseth plays petty politics with top officials at the Pentagon, I think he's fired almost two dozen flag officers now in the midst of a war, in the midst of national security challenges all around the globe. Nobody in the Pentagon trusts anybody right now. It's chaos and disarray behind the scenes. We hear this repeatedly as officials from the Pentagon come and testify before our committee and have meetings with us on the side. Everyone's afraid that they say one thing out of line, they'll get fired. I mean, that is a hallmark of the Soviet military. That's a hallmark of the Chinese Communist Party ideological loyalty. It's the opposite of that. That has always made America the best country on earth and made our military far and away the best military on earth, because you're able to question things, you're able to have intellectual debate. But now, if you're a colonel who gets himself into Harvard, you can't go, because Hegseth just doesn't like Harvard. No matter that the troops want to go there, you just can't go. And a whole bunch of other schools are on that list as well. So the long term damage that Hegseth is doing to the military because of petty politics is unbelievable. But there's something I want to talk about as well, which.